Private planes, private no more

[CWOJackson]

The Department of Transportation, which used to allow anyone with a private plane to choose not to have their flight plans made available for public consumption, has decided to eliminate that option. So if you want to snoop into someone else's travel itinerary, you can do it.

The reason: "Both general aviation and commercial aircraft use the public airspace and air traffic control facilities, and the public has a right to information about their activities."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/chi-private-planes-private-no-more-20110824,0,3721694.story?track=rss

Folks, let's try to keep discussion directly regarding the rule change and not make this political.

(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/chi-private-planes-private-no-more-20110824,0,3721694.story?track=rss)

[David_L6]

I do not agree with that policy at all!!! :angryfir:

[Allen]

I do not agree with that policy at all!!! :angryfir:

Why the #%#@ not?

[jhefner]

Why the #%#@ not?

Privacy, of course. Would you want Garmin to publish the wearabouts of your car at any time? Why should flying a plane be any different?

The government has radar and other means of tracking private flights; it will also have a negative impact on folk's willingness to file flightplans; which would have a great impact on flight safety.

-James

[Allen]

Cars don't fly over my house.

Privacy? You don't have plans to buy a new EA games or have Valve products like stream? If you I have bad news for you...

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/24/eas-origin-eula-proves-even-more-sinister/

[Flyboy208]

I have no problem filing a flight plan, but imagine if you had to do the same thing with daily driving ... Big Brother can suck it !!!:running:

[andersel]

This goes right along with warrantless wire-tapping and racial/religious profiling.

LA

[Ivan]

Needless security. Rates right up there with tossing your bottles of water for more expensive ones right past the security gate.

The military knows what airspace to defend. If someone transgresses, we know by the registration number who they are and if they refuse an escort away from the controlled area, they get shot down.

Regarding airplanes flying over our houses, Even on the flight plan, no one can stop a pilot from planting the plane into your roof. There just isn't the time or the protection. Now how is that different from anyone stopping me from renting a moving van and running it through your front door? Some things are just not defendable.

We security dweebs invent all kinds of goofy rules about things we know nothing about for folks to follow. Once they are in writing, that's it.

- Ivan.

[stansdds]

More useless legislation.

[magoo]

It's an eye roller that any polititian is doing anything other than working to stablize and improve the economy. This is just a dumb and possibly expensive distraction, certainly designed to create a greater degree of (arguable) control over the public.

Truthfully, bad guys who buy decertified planes, paint them black and fly at tree top level across borders with curious cargos....are not going to file flight plans.

Terrrorists who hijack aircraft for whatever reason, will not file an advisory or change of flightplan...

Some miner in Alaska who hops in the C.140 floater to pickup a part for the air-trac, and be back onsite in an hour, will not file a you-know-what...

And so on....etc, etc....

This will certainly challenge the privacy of pilot Elmer Fud, and will generate greater degree of beauracratic expenditure, just at a time when costs need to reduced, greater efficiency evoked.

People need work, not more of this cumulative garbage.

....Who could we fire for this kind of dumb-*ss levity....

[CWOJackson]

I can see where some private pilots may not want their flight plans made public particularly in how the internet has already made things so much easier for thieves. Conversely, I don't see where making those flight plans public, over the request for confidentiality by the pilots, does ANYTHING to enhance flight safety.

[srgalahad]

I'm rather amazed that, on a forum of people who supposedly know something about aviation, the sort of #$%#^ I read above gets posted.

The data:
Ever since FAA radar data was digitized many years ago (as analog radar systems were replaced) the ability to track and display the flight information has been available. Oh, and it's really IFR aircraft in radar coverage that are at issue for the most part, not Fred in his Tri-Pacer going to the fly-in.

Usage:
First by the FAA for it's traffic management system (the people who plan routes, enroute holds and control and create the 'ground delays' that slot flights of all kinds so that congestion downstream is minimized).
Soon thereafter, due to public pressure, it was made available (taxpayer-funded data under various Freedom of Information claims) and various groups found a use for it. This led to companies like Flight Aware and Flight Tracker offering it to the public so they could track granny's flight when she came for a visit. The airlines like it because it reduces the hundreds of calls about arrival times and business people like it because they spend less idle time at airports waiting for delayed flights. SOH members use it to expand their knowledge of flight ops and aircraft.

OOPS:
The corporate world realized that they showed up like the airlines. This led to curious people and then shareholders possibly tracking company aircraft - "why is the company Lear headed for Cabo San Lucas?" and competitors watching to see where each other were headed -hey, it's a competitive world...

Suddenly, the National Business Aircraft Assn. used corporate clout to get the FAA to allow companies to 'opt out' of being displayed for "security reasons" (not state secrets but the whereabouts and travel patterns of company personnel). The EAA and AOPA joined in because 'privacy' is a good "hot button" to start a fight. In fact, it's only since the internet that most people even realized that flight plan info was available (wanna blame Al Gore for that?)

So, you have corporations (and private individuals) wanting privacy. On the other hand you have companies wanting full disclosure so they can run a business selling 'information' to the public. The same business that wants anonymity BUYS the info so the corp. aviation department can keep track of their own planes. Paradox?

All that has happened is that the "opt out" button has been removed. So it's a choice.. the ability to display ALL the information to those who fund it, or give select and certain groups the ability to remain anonymous in public. Funny thing is that we've had scanners for decades and anyone listening could hear clearances issued and could make notes of where the planes were going...

Cost? the 'opt-out' ability probably adds to it because that had to be built into the flight data software programming and the databases have to be maintained.

I may not like some of the ways the world has changed either, but the advent of mass use of the internet really has changed what we can know about the world around us.

If you want someone to blame, pick on the guys who demanded full and open access to a taxpayer funded data set, and the techies who found a way to turn that into a business venture... and tell they guy who invented the internet to turn it off and go back to 1960.

[Daveroo]

I'm rather amazed that, on a forum of people who supposedly know something about aviation, the sort of #$%#^ I read above gets posted.

The data:
Ever since FAA radar data was digitized many years ago (as analog radar systems were replaced) the ability to track and display the flight information has been available. Oh, and it's really IFR aircraft in radar coverage that are at issue for the most part, not Fred in his Tri-Pacer going to the fly-in.

Usage:
First by the FAA for it's traffic management system (the people who plan routes, enroute holds and control and create the 'ground delays' that slot flights of all kinds so that congestion downstream is minimized).
Soon thereafter, due to public pressure, it was made available (taxpayer-funded data under various Freedom of Information claims) and various groups found a use for it. This led to companies like Flight Aware and Flight Tracker offering it to the public so they could track granny's flight when she came for a visit. The airlines like it because it reduces the hundreds of calls about arrival times and business people like it because they spend less idle time at airports waiting for delayed flights. SOH members use it to expand their knowledge of flight ops and aircraft.

OOPS:
The corporate world realized that they showed up like the airlines. This led to curious people and then shareholders possibly tracking company aircraft - "why is the company Lear headed for Cabo San Lucas?" and competitors watching to see where each other were headed -hey, it's a competitive world...

Suddenly, the National Business Aircraft Assn. used corporate clout to get the FAA to allow companies to 'opt out' of being displayed for "security reasons" (not state secrets but the whereabouts and travel patterns of company personnel). The EAA and AOPA joined in because 'privacy' is a good "hot button" to start a fight. In fact, it's only since the internet that most people even realized that flight plan info was available (wanna blame Al Gore for that?)

So, you have corporations (and private individuals) wanting privacy. On the other hand you have companies wanting full disclosure so they can run a business selling 'information' to the public. The same business that wants anonymity BUYS the info so the corp. aviation department can keep track of their own planes. Paradox?

All that has happened is that the "opt out" button has been removed. So it's a choice.. the ability to display ALL the information to those who fund it, or give select and certain groups the ability to remain anonymous in public. Funny thing is that we've had scanners for decades and anyone listening could hear clearances issued and could make notes of where the planes were going...

Cost? the 'opt-out' ability probably adds to it because that had to be built into the flight data software programming and the databases have to be maintained.

I may not like some of the ways the world has changed either, but the advent of mass use of the internet really has changed what we can know about the world around us.

If you want someone to blame, pick on the guys who demanded full and open access to a taxpayer funded data set, and the techies who found a way to turn that into a business venture... and tell they guy who invented the internet to turn it off and go back to 1960.
geese sug,,,,gotta be so smart and logical?..i kinda liked the &*^%&^% posts....:mixedsmi: i will say seriously,i was watching the tv show "burn notice" and they wanted to track a plane,couldnt because they were "off the radar" and they had to pay some "spy" to get the info,,,this will ruin plotlines like that,,,LOL......

[aeroscout]

geese sug,,,,gotta be so smart and logical?..i kinda liked the &*^%&^% posts....:mixedsmi: i will say seriously,i was watching the tv show "burn notice" and they wanted to track a plane,couldnt because they were "off the radar" and they had to pay some "spy" to get the info,,,this will ruin plotlines like that,,,LOL......



Deleted by Admin. Check your PMs

[Blackbird686]

I would hope that this thread would not turn into another slugfest over politics, but in a way, I agree with the right of private pilots, to keep their flight information confidential, to a degree. I have no problem filing a flight plan, never have. Just that I don't like the idea of some wacko having access to it.

What scares me even more is that any "pilot wannabe mutt" can walk into an aviation store or pilot shop and if he has enough "ducketts" in his pocket, can buy a 2 way pilots HT radio with comms and navs. Not only that but charts and approach guides. Now for flight simmers, charts and approach guides is one thing but not a fully capable 2 way aviation radio.

BB688:USA-flag:

[CWOJackson]

The ability to "opt out" can't be that much of a burden for the FAA since it will allow pilots to opt out if they can "written certification of a valid security threat." Where does a private pilot get a "written certification of a valid security threat"? What constitutes valid?

If it's easy enough to screen a flight plan for a private pilot with a "written certification of a valid security threat" then it can't be any more difficult to screen a flight plan for a private pilot who just doesn't want his travels public. It would probably take less time then evaluating whether their written certificate does or doesn't present a valid security threat.

[Roger]

Deleted by Admin. Check your PMs.

Keep the politics out of this forum or this thread will be closed!

[SkippyBing]

I'm a bit hazy on the FAA regs but seriously how many GA flights actually need to file a flight plan? On top of that, once you've filed a flight plan how secret did you think it actually was? If someone was interested enough in you to monitor the flight of your private aircraft*they already had the option of bribing the lowest paid official in the FAA with access to the data.

*To be fair the flight plan won't tell you everyone who's on the aircraft so it may be you're not even on it.

[TeaSea]

Some points I'd like to make:

1) In the U.S. as a GA pilot you only HAVE to file if you are going to be IFR. You MAY file if you are VFR, and you MAY use services if you are VFR at any time, UNLESS you are in controlled airspace that dictates contact with Center. Controlled air space is Class A, B, C, or D. Note you only have to Activate (a different process) when you are flying IFR. I routinely use services or file IFR because I fly in a congested area. It's just safer. A buddy of mine who flies out of a different location NEVER uses services, but he's in a pretty open area. I don't know for sure but I would venture that most GA flights on a given day have no flight plan or use no active en-route services.

(As an aside, most corporate aircraft will file since they will be in the Flight Levels (18K minimum) which is Class A airspace. You must file IFR if you are entering Class A.)

2) The privacy issue has much less to do with routes and flying that with the information available immediately to anyone in the world. As a GA pilot and plane owner, you already have my personnel information (address, phone number, business, etc) available to you if you have my "N" number. This is provided by the FAA in a standard database and is considered public record. Tying that to routes I'm flying in my opinion exceeds the standards of the "need to know" and may put my family or myself at risk. I see no reason for the U.S. Government to provide this data to ANYONE in the world to have ANONYMOUS access to gratis (paid for by the U.S. taxpayer) for private aircraft. Especially given the same Government screens out any U.S. Government travel for reason's of privacy and security. Just doesn't pass the common sense test, and it actually costs us money to provide it.

3) People drive down the public roads everyday, and no one tracks them...YET. Since GM and "On Star" is now owned by the Federal Government perhaps that will change. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the EVIL Federal Government (I work for the Gov't) , but someone in some agency or department somewhere, for the best of reasons (managing Hurricane evacuation routes?), will point out the benefits of tracking individual vehicles down the road and there's where it will start. It's the slow insidious erosion of basic freedoms, all for the best of intentions, that's the biggest threat to our Republic and our citizenry. Okay, little soap box there, but you get the point. We'll be able to keep an eye on all the members of this forum and their various nefarious dealings ("Running to the 7-11 for Chips Ahoy again are we??").

So I humbly suggest all you guys and gals who think this is just a GA deal pay attention. Finally, it is perfectly acceptable for the citizenry to demand to know "WHY" when a department arbitrarily makes a decision. There are some issues that should be addressed on principle alone, with no regard to consequences, positive or negative. I believe this issue comes close to meeting that standard. I don't beleive the FAA has yet been able to answer the "WHY" satisfactorily.

[aeroscout]

Some points I'd like to make:

1) In the U.S. as a GA pilot you only HAVE to file if you are going to be IFR. You MAY file if you are VFR, and you MAY use services if you are VFR at any time, UNLESS you are in controlled airspace that dictates contact with Center. Controlled air space is Class A, B, C, or D. Note you only have to Activate (a different process) when you are flying IFR. I routinely use services or file IFR because I fly in a congested area. It's just safer. A buddy of mine who flies out of a different location NEVER uses services, but he's in a pretty open area. I don't know for sure but I would venture that most GA flights on a given day have no flight plan or use no active en-route services.

(As an aside, most corporate aircraft will file since they will be in the Flight Levels (18K minimum) which is Class A airspace. You must file IFR if you are entering Class A.)

2) The privacy issue has much less to do with routes and flying that with the information available immediately to anyone in the world. As a GA pilot and plane owner, you already have my personnel information (address, phone number, business, etc) available to you if you have my "N" number. This is provided by the FAA in a standard database and is considered public record. Tying that to routes I'm flying in my opinion exceeds the standards of the "need to know" and may put my family or myself at risk. I see no reason for the U.S. Government to provide this data to ANYONE in the world to have ANONYMOUS access to gratis (paid for by the U.S. taxpayer) for private aircraft. Especially given the same Government screens out any U.S. Government travel for reason's of privacy and security. Just doesn't pass the common sense test, and it actually costs us money to provide it.

3) People drive down the public roads everyday, and no one tracks them...YET. Since GM and "On Star" is now owned by the Federal Government perhaps that will change. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the EVIL Federal Government (I work for the Gov't) , but someone in some agency or department somewhere, for the best of reasons (managing Hurricane evacuation routes?), will point out the benefits of tracking individual vehicles down the road and there's where it will start. It's the slow insidious erosion of basic freedoms, all for the best of intentions, that's the biggest threat to our Republic and our citizenry. Okay, little soap box there, but you get the point. We'll be able to keep an eye on all the members of this forum and their various nefarious dealings ("Running to the 7-11 for Chips Ahoy again are we??").

So I humbly suggest all you guys and gals who think this is just a GA deal pay attention. Finally, it is perfectly acceptable for the citizenry to demand to know "WHY" when a department arbitrarily makes a decision. There are some issues that should be addressed on principle alone, with no regard to consequences, positive or negative. I believe this issue comes close to meeting that standard. I don't beleive the FAA has yet been able to answer the "WHY" satisfactorily.


Time to keep the government out of our everyday functions.The FAA is as bad as the NHTSA.Will this make the cut WillY

[TeaSea]

Please note, I don't think this is a political issue at all. The FAA is charged with the regulation of the U.S. Airways, which is essentially apolitical. I (and many others) just happen to disagree with this particular regulatory point, which seems to have no point at all.

[txnetcop]

Some points I'd like to make:

1) In the U.S. as a GA pilot you only HAVE to file if you are going to be IFR. You MAY file if you are VFR, and you MAY use services if you are VFR at any time, UNLESS you are in controlled airspace that dictates contact with Center. Controlled air space is Class A, B, C, or D. Note you only have to Activate (a different process) when you are flying IFR. I routinely use services or file IFR because I fly in a congested area. It's just safer. A buddy of mine who flies out of a different location NEVER uses services, but he's in a pretty open area. I don't know for sure but I would venture that most GA flights on a given day have no flight plan or use no active en-route services.

(As an aside, most corporate aircraft will file since they will be in the Flight Levels (18K minimum) which is Class A airspace. You must file IFR if you are entering Class A.)

2) The privacy issue has much less to do with routes and flying that with the information available immediately to anyone in the world. As a GA pilot and plane owner, you already have my personnel information (address, phone number, business, etc) available to you if you have my "N" number. This is provided by the FAA in a standard database and is considered public record. Tying that to routes I'm flying in my opinion exceeds the standards of the "need to know" and may put my family or myself at risk. I see no reason for the U.S. Government to provide this data to ANYONE in the world to have ANONYMOUS access to gratis (paid for by the U.S. taxpayer) for private aircraft. Especially given the same Government screens out any U.S. Government travel for reason's of privacy and security. Just doesn't pass the common sense test, and it actually costs us money to provide it.

3) People drive down the public roads everyday, and no one tracks them...YET. Since GM and "On Star" is now owned by the Federal Government perhaps that will change. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the EVIL Federal Government (I work for the Gov't) , but someone in some agency or department somewhere, for the best of reasons (managing Hurricane evacuation routes?), will point out the benefits of tracking individual vehicles down the road and there's where it will start. It's the slow insidious erosion of basic freedoms, all for the best of intentions, that's the biggest threat to our Republic and our citizenry. Okay, little soap box there, but you get the point. We'll be able to keep an eye on all the members of this forum and their various nefarious dealings ("Running to the 7-11 for Chips Ahoy again are we??").

So I humbly suggest all you guys and gals who think this is just a GA deal pay attention. Finally, it is perfectly acceptable for the citizenry to demand to know "WHY" when a department arbitrarily makes a decision. There are some issues that should be addressed on principle alone, with no regard to consequences, positive or negative. I believe this issue comes close to meeting that standard. I don't beleive the FAA has yet been able to answer the "WHY" satisfactorily.

YEP FOR SURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I subscribe to this way of thinking about our "well-meaning" federal govt, and as a GA pilot I am just waiting for the next step they take!
Ted

[CWOJackson]

Please note, I don't think this is a political issue at all. The FAA is charged with the regulation of the U.S. Airways, which is essentially apolitical. I (and many others) just happen to disagree with this particular regulatory point, which seems to have no point at all.

Well stated.

[Roger]

The political elements of Aeroscout's post were deleted by an admin. So if you didn't see them before deletion then you'll see nothing political in the thread. Let's keep it that way please.

[TeaSea]

See Roger,

We can play nice.


Sort of.......

[Roger]

See Roger,

We can play nice.


Sort of.......

:engel016: